# Normal for a vintage box?



## rainman (Apr 13, 2007)

I just received a box of Upmann Monarcas (SCO AGO 00) that I'm not too sure about. Although I'm confident the box itself checks out OK, the contents are another story.

Here are my concerns:
1) all the seals on the box were already cut 
2) although the sticks smelled fantastic, most of them looked like they either had a dusty or slightly opaque finish on the wrapper
3) the foot of many of the cigars look like they had at one time blue mold on/in them, however there is nothing to brush off

Sorry I can't supply any pictures at the moment... I'm out of batteries  I'd appreciate any feedback!


----------



## newcigarz (Feb 11, 2007)

rainman said:


> I just received a box of Upmann Monarcas (SCO AGO 00) that I'm not too sure about. Although I'm confident the box itself checks out OK, the contents are another story.
> 
> Here are my concerns:
> 1) all the seals on the box were already cut
> ...


1 & 2 don't really alarm me. But 3 I would be wary of.


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm sure they are fine. I have the same box code. I think all of these came from the same source in Switzerland. The seals are going to be cut by most vendors to visually inspect cigars. Especially if they are from 99. Lot of problems with construction that year. Not sure about what you are describing on the wrappers, maybe had some plume, but I would not worry about it. Maybe they had some light mold and it wiped off? If it wipes off it's ok. If it's a good source no need for concern.


----------



## Addiction (May 8, 2007)

If you trust your source then breathe deep close the box and move on. If you don't why did you buy from them?

I think you'll be fine. Every vintage box I've ever bought has been opened even if it was from private parties.


----------



## rainman (Apr 13, 2007)

Thanks for the responses! I'm still a little worried about the foot so I'll snap a couple photos later tonight for everyone to see because as everyone knows, this thread is useless without photos :sl


----------



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

Sounds fine to me (though some may argue with the characterization of a 2000 box as "vintage", LOL!!!).


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

I don't see any reason for concern. Sound fine to me. How do they smoke?


----------



## newcigarz (Feb 11, 2007)

chibnkr said:


> Sounds fine to me (though some may argue with the characterization of a 2000 box as "vintage", LOL!!!).


Snob :tg

J/K Michael :r


----------



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

newcigarz said:


> Snob :tg


Hey - I said "some may argue" not "I would argue", LOL!

But, alas, you are probably right...


----------



## rainman (Apr 13, 2007)

mosesbotbol said:


> I don't see any reason for concern. Sound fine to me. How do they smoke?


Don't know yet since I just received them yesterday in the mail. I'll give them a shot this weekend (weather permitting) and let you know.


----------



## rainman (Apr 13, 2007)

chibnkr said:


> Hey - I said "some may argue" not "I would argue", LOL!
> 
> But, alas, you are probably right...


Wow! Tough crowd :r


----------



## Darrell (Aug 12, 2007)

I'll smoke them if you won't. :tu


----------



## Addiction (May 8, 2007)

Darrell said:


> I'll smoke them if you won't. :tu


Thats why I love you D, you are such a giver!


----------



## poker (Dec 11, 1997)

chibnkr said:


> Sounds fine to me (though some may argue with the characterization of a 2000 box as "vintage", LOL!!!).


my thoughts was well when I hear "vintage" my mindset races back to pre-1996:r
(yeah, Im a closet snob) lol


----------



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

poker said:


> my thoughts was well when I hear "vintage" my mindset races back to pre-1996:r
> (yeah, Im a closet snob) lol


Well, at least it's not just me! I now have some company!!! :tu


----------



## kjd2121 (Jul 13, 2006)

rainman said:


> I'm out of batteries  I'd appreciate any feedback!


You must not be a female - :r


----------



## JCK (Nov 9, 2006)

newcigarz said:


> Snob :tg
> 
> J/K Michael :r





chibnkr said:


> Hey - I said "some may argue" not "I would argue", LOL!
> 
> But, alas, you are probably right...


Michael, of course he's right, it says so in your title!!! :]


----------



## JCK (Nov 9, 2006)

poker said:


> my thoughts was well when I hear "vintage" my mindset races back to pre-1996:r
> (yeah, Im a closet snob) lol


I think you should change your title....

Blame me it's okay! I'm a closet snob has a certain ring to it


----------



## Jay Hemingway-cl (Oct 21, 2007)

chibnkr said:


> Hey - I said "some may argue" not "I would argue", LOL!
> 
> But, alas, you are probably right...


 :ss


----------



## Tristan (Jul 11, 2006)

chibnkr said:


> Well, at least it's not just me! I now have some company!!! :tu


I was thinking the same thing, but I'm quite pretentious. :ss

Sounds like you've got nothing to worry about RE: the box. Picture would be helpful!


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

kjd2121 said:


> You must not be a female - :r


Gee ... do you think these Monarcas make my butt look fat?

Sorry ... dumb ... couldn't resist.


----------



## jmcrawf1 (May 2, 2007)

chibnkr said:


> Sounds fine to me (though some may argue with the characterization of a 2000 box as "vintage", LOL!!!).


:tg:r

One man's vintage is another man's pedestrian smokes......


----------



## Tristan (Jul 11, 2006)

jmcrawf1 said:


> :tg:r
> 
> One man's vintage is another man's pedestrian smokes......


Truer words were never spoken!


----------



## rainman (Apr 13, 2007)

OK I finally have photos for you snobs :r

I'm not so worried about the box as the contents however I did try one of them last night, as overly humidified as it was and it was still a pleasure so that definitely bodes well for it.




























This one is a little difficult to make out









And a little more clear









Since this is my first aged box I really didn't know what to expect so I'm basing all my obeservations on the more recent box purchases I've made with '05 being the oldest. It's that bluish/green band around the circumference of the foot that has me worried. I didn't really see any other signs on these sticks that raised any concerns. I'm guessing this is OK since it smoked fine last night but I'm interested in the feedback from more experienced members.


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

It's really hard to see anything in your photos. Use your camera's macro setting (the flower icon) and (a) get closer to the cigar and (b) zoom in. Maybe consider taking pics of a couple different ones, too. From *those* pics, I don't see anything about which to be concerned....


----------



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

The Professor said:


> It's really hard to see anything in your photos. Use your camera's macro setting (the flower icon) and (a) get closer to the cigar and (b) zoom in. Maybe consider taking pics of a couple different ones, too. From *those* pics, I don't see anything about which to be concerned....


Yep - 100% agreed. Would need a much closer (clear/focused) shot of the foot. Everything else looks OK (albeit a bit "rustic" so far as the wrapper is concerned...but no big deal).


----------



## cigarflip (Jul 4, 2004)

poker said:


> my thoughts was well when I hear "vintage" my mindset races back to pre-1996:r
> (yeah, Im a closet snob) lol


Bro, your standards ahve definitely gone down since you started hanging out with me and Rob.:r


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

If it's any consolation, that's EXACTLY the way that factory code was stamped back then. I remember it well. Same odd arrangement of the letter code, kind of odd letter sizes.


----------



## Rudder (Feb 7, 2008)

Smoke one and let us know how they are.


----------

